Tuesday 31 December 2013

Worst map of 2013

Update: since I wrote this blog the author of the map concerned got in touch with some vitriol and a lack of humour citing some copyright nonsense, unprofessionalism and such like. He had a less than enthusiastic take on my writing on what remains the worst map of 2013. I guess the truth hurt and he failed to see the tongue-in-cheek approach I took to this. Despite the fact I know I am well within my rights to use the image under the principle of 'fair use' the author was being somewhat difficult. So the image is removed...but you can click on it to go to his tweets directly (wear shades). He tweets this bilge daily. yes, it is bilge. He might not like my humorous take on his efforts but make a map that bad and it deserves to be completely slated in unflattering terms.

My friend and colleague Craig Williams posted this gem on Twitter and it immediately registered as possibly the worst map I have seen in a long while...and for that alone it's gone straight in as my worst map of the year (by someone other than me). So bad, it's not even in a top ten - it's in a list of one.

Colours...holy mother of all that is decent...this is out of bounds, off the hook, shut the door and throw away the key awful. Not content with a simple rainbow effort this crowbars two of the worst colour ramps I have ever seen together in one discontinuous continuous blur. A symposium of technicolour psychedelic vomit across the map. Zero or -100? -20 or 125? You tell me. Land or water? Again, tricky.

Good job they added temperature annotation all over the map so you don't need to worry about the colour...at least it would be if you could make them out. Quite a bit of overlapping annotation and black lines overprinted make that task a little tricky.  You'd like to think labels means land and no labels mean water but no...some (not all) water has labels to.

Somewhere in there is a coastline but with State boundaries also on board that bisect the Great Lakes it makes uncovering that a little cumbersome. And look at those beautiful offshore temperatures...what accuracy...what precision...each colour and one degree of temperature change gets its own contour interval. 

And zero...that's the huge cliff drop in colour across the map. How many 'white-ish' zones does the ramp go through? Well there's one at about -45, another at 0...one more at 30. Ugh! 

At least it has a title...erm, well...it has a collection of codes and characters across the top, some of which make some sense.

It squeaked in at the end of the year but it's singularly the most worthy effort of the crown of cartographic failure of the year for this cartonerd at least. The very reason that cartography exists is to prevent this sort of crap. Please people...let's try a little harder and not insist on using every single crayola.

I'm quite sure weather modellers would say they understand this nonsense perfectly well (or maybe it explains why weather forecasting is as much miss as it is hit?) but modelling the map on some Grateful Dead album cover from the 1970s is taking things too far. Actually...no it isn't...

Happy Mappy New Year to you all (except for the author of this map who has no sense of humour)

Saturday 21 December 2013

Favourite maps from 2013

Everyone and their dog tends to publish their own 'best maps of...'. Given I spend most of my time on this blog haranguing bad maps during the year I thought I might try it myself this year so here goes, in no particular order...my favourite 10 maps of 2013. For those that are counting, there's 11 but here goes...

NYCHenge by Andrew Hill

The Manhattan Solstice occurs twice a year when the setting sun aligns perfectly with the east-west street grid in New York City. This map could not be any simpler but it captures the phenomena perfectly. Intuitive, interactive controls and a great use of colour allow viewers to explore the way in which the sun splashes across the city throughout the year. Temporal data, perfectly represented with expert use of colour and contrast.


Population Lines by James Cheshire

Global population density drawn as horizontal lines...almost like a cardiograph of the pulse of the world's populus. Not the first map of population that's ever been made but a compelling, alternative and fresh approach. A map that is also a piece of art and the beauty of it's design lies in its simplicity with colour used sparingly and for emphasis. There's an attention to detail that most will overlook that makes this so pleasing to view. Design is implicit.


Tornado Days by Brenden Heberton

2013 saw any number of maps made using NOAA's historical tornado data but this example did a fantastic job of going beyond the map by combining a wide range of multimedia in an innovative way.  The reader scrolls down to reveal new facts, new maps and a new layout. This heightens the interest and keeps people immersed in the rich story being told. Maps as a component of a story...expertly collated and combined with related material.


PLUTO is Free! by Andrew Hill

A selection of maps that celebrate the release of New York City's PLUTO dataset. As you cycle through, the range of maps is well matched to each dataset and illustrated with simple, effective and eye-catching approaches. The maps were initially prepared to provide images for projection at a party but as a linear gallery, they work here to highlight not only the data but high quality cartography, professionally applied in a clean UI.


Scents of Glasgow by Kate McLean

Putting the art in Cartography; a visual art installation that combines a map of perceived smells from Glasgow during the winter of 2012 with bottled scents. The idea is to use the map, combined with 9 bottled scents to inform the culture, history, planning and climate of the city. Soap, Bovril, damp moss, sausage all represent synonymous places. The map shows the centre of the smell and how it dissipates using proportional symbols. It's art. It's c'art. It's done beautifully.


Cloudless Atlas by Mapbox

A fresh approach to making a mosaic of NASA's LANCE-MODIS data. Rather than taking the best image of a particular place and then quilting them together, Mapbox stacked images and processed them, pixel by pixel to get the average of the least cloudy pixel before stitching it all back together to create a seamless cloud-free atlas. Completely synthetic but a great example of using generalisation techniques to create a product that is greater than the sum of its parts (literally). Beautiful imagery.


Global Wind Map by Cameron Beccario

Fernanda Viégas and Martin Wattenberg's Wind Map of the USA was one of the best maps of 2012. Here, a similar approach is applied globally for near real-time data. A mesmerizing, beautiful depiction of global weather patterns though the serene nature of the map belies the potential power and savagery of the mapped theme. Intuitive UI and some simple and useful ways to modify the view. Neat.


Collins Crossworld Puzzle by Kenneth Gibson and Kathryn Kelly (Collins Bartholomew)

The world map...as a crossword. That makes it a crossworld. Geddit? Such a simple idea and a well crafted design with clues that broadly fit the locations of their position on the map. Sometimes the simplest of ideas can turn into the most effective of maps. Interaction is implicit. The classic black and white print crossword depiction is favoured and thankfully the temptation to colour continents was ignored. Great work.


The Next Big Spill by Lauri Vanhala

Beautiful production on this video of marine traffic in The Baltic Sea gives the map a cinematic quality. The map is the main actor but the supporting cast of captions makes it easy to understand. The map provokes a questioning approach to what you're seeing. The zooming, panning and soft-focus gives the map a strong aesthetic and the use of a sensible soundscape adds to the atmospheric approach.


Restless America by Chris Walker

Proving that a map doesn't need to take a conventional form, here a chord chart shows the inter-state migration of people in the US in 2012. Good use of size to conotate magnitude and colour to enable differentiation between the States. Simple mouseover interaction means viewers don't get RSI through having to click everywhere. Trying to put this information onto a map wouldn't work as it'd be too overcrowded. This woks. Simply.


Khumbu Himal by Institute of Cartography at TU Dresden

Classic mountain cartography gets a refresh. There's a new colour scheme to go alongside the additional topographic detail derived from new surveys and satellite imagery. The lineage of classic Imhof-inspired depiction of mountain terrain is evident but the colours have been tweaked to give even clearer lines. The detail is breathtaking and although the map is abstract (the earth doesn't actually look like that of course), the colours and symbology give you an unparalleled sense of place.


I've probably missed a few but these are the ones I remember so on that basis alone they obviously registered somewhere in my mapping subconscious. Agree? Disagree?

What can we expect from 2014? World Cup Maps....probably as cartograms.

Thursday 19 December 2013

Keep calm and study cartography

As regular readers (and critics...I know who you are) of this blog will know, this is where I point to examples of bad maps and try and explain why they are bad and why life may be that little bit better if they were improved. It strikes me, however, that this is fast becoming a complete waste of time because the tide of poor mapping is beyond endemic...beyond epidemic even. It's a pandemic. What's more...it seems less people neither want to know or care. They are content with sub-par efforts even if they contain basic mistakes.

It's one thing for the internet to provide a mechanism for people to get mapping, but another entirely when such maps are duly picked up and promoted beyond what they are capable of showing...and that's my beef in this blog.

Business Insider were guilty of this with a series of maps they made earlier this year...promoting their own cartographic ignorance (total of 808,000 views to date). This was also the case after the latest viral tweetmap (the Beyonce flawless map) was picked up by several online blogs and then hit TIME magazine online. Now we have another.

Jeff Sackmann of the blog tennisabstract.com has made an app to map ranking of players by country.

Here's a screen shot showing the top 1000 WTA players by country:

Here, then...the classic non-normalised choropleth. The data needs to be per capita. I might have mentioned this before (yawn!) and I was going to leave this map alone until anumber of blogs and then USA Today picked it up. Now to be fair, they do at least point to the same drawback of the maps but it seems to me a pattern is emerging and it goes something like this...

1. Person makes a map...it is alive therefore it is right (the internet says so and no-one's checking anyway)
2. Person self-promotes it on their own blog/site (nothing wrong with that...it's the internet!)
3. Some people look at map...most believe it because it's a map so it must be true.
4. Map becomes the modern equivalent of fish'n'chip paper except...on the odd occasion...

5. Other people in need of content to promote their own site trawl the internet for stuff happen across map
6. Said map is re-promoted on a new site to many more people (ad nauseum)
7. Any problems with the map are lost in the mists of time (the cacophony of 'Likes' speaks volumes)
8. The map is now cool so to be cool you have to like a map that is cool (hit 'Like')
9. A piece of cartography dies and...

11. Bloggers/commentators/experts (like me) get criticised for not liking the latest cool map

Just because I can...here's what the above map should look like when normalised (and on an equal area projection to avoid the visual bias caused by Mercator). I could have stuck this in an online map (to get clicky things so you can see values for each country) but no-one would have 'liked' it so I didn't go that far but I feel it proves the point anyway.

Now...if someone wants to argue that the non-normalised version tells the same story as the normalised version then I'm happy to use pistols at dawn.

I love that people make maps. I just wish more would make them properly...and even more, I'd like for those that promote maps on their own sites for their own purpose to do some basic research to figure out whether what they are showing is actually worth showing. If people reading maps are unable to tell the difference (and why should they...they're busy with their own lives and areas of expertise) then it's beholden on map-makers to make their maps right.

Keep calm and study (a little) cartography.

[update: edits to correct spellings]

Apple patents maps

Hot on the heels of Microsoft's attempt to patent choropleth maps and Apple's own attempt to patent schematic maps, news this morning from Cupertino's increasingly bizarre reality distortion field that Apple, fine purveyor of shiny consumer electronic wet dreams, has filed a patent application for 'layered maps'.  I'm surprised no-one has thought of this...

Marshall Island stick charts
John Snow's map of cholera
Minard's map of Napoleon's March to Moscow
a small matter of GIS (talk to Roger Tomlinson for starters...there are others who could advise)
Google (et al.)
every map I've bloody well made
pretty much every map anyone else has every made

...all prior art for the layering of layers of data, in map form, that provide a rich environment in which to describe and answer spatial questions. Technology has changed and we now do this mostly using layers from internet derived sources...quite often mashing them up using apps to generate new information. Bang goes the crux of their terrific idea. Ya boo sucks.

End of. .

P.S. I'm still trying to find a way to file a patent for crap chLoropleth maps...but everyone's making them.

Tuesday 17 December 2013

The flawless map

Beyoncé recently launched a new album, unannounced. Simon Rogers (formerly of The Guardian and now at Twitter) capitalised on this and created a map using CartoDB and the new Torque. And here it is:

I'm a big fan of CartoDB and also the new Torque engine for creating animated maps with simple, intuitive UI design. But what of the map? The map is a great example of rapidly collating a dataset and publishing it.

I was going to ignore it as blog fodder because it's just one of those transient map objects that we tend to see daily on the interwebs. You look at it, then move on pretty rapidly...but then a TIME magazine article entitled "This Map of Beyoncé-Related Tweets in Real Time After the Album Dropped Is Flawless" appeared. Obvious references aside, the other adjectives used to describe it are..."awesome", "amazing". Now we have blog fodder.

Flawless?  FLAWLESS? I get the reference but this is the hugely respected TIME magazine. It's nearly 100 years old, has the largest circulation of any weekly news publication and a readership of 25 million. The article was written by Laura Stampler, a graduate of Stanford who has held positions at Business insider and the Huffington Post. Now a reporter at TIME she may be a good news hound, she may even be a fan of Beyoncé but based on her article she's got no idea about mapping. She demonstrates herself as just another consumer of the interweb who tacitly accepts its wares. She's not alone by the way...it's a plague.

The map is nothing more than day-glo pinkish-purple splodges of geolocated tweets. Tweets that I've noted before are possibly the worst metric of any modern scrapable dataset. They account for such a biased population they simply cannot be taken as representative of anything. There's so much error and uncertainty which the map implicitly portrays. Sure, it's eye candy but nothing more. It doesn't even really show the true explosion of Beyoncé fandom...it only shows the explosion of geolocated tweets that mention her album as people wake up across the globe...or maybe just mention her name since it's a self-titled album. Can we really gauge the geographical pattern of fandom? Do we know whether people liked or disliked the album? And what about the much larger proportion of people without smartphones, in countries with little network coverage and who don't use Twitter. What of those who use Twitter but turn off geolocation. The map fails to answer any sort of question. Even at it's basic level, the question of  'where'
(in this case...where do people tweet about Beyoncé), the map falls over because it's such a partial dataset.

Ms Stampler offers some in-depth interpretation...the US east coast is consumed by bright purple light whereas Russia is underwhelmed. OK...Web Mercator makes Russia appear much larger, having the effect of dissipating what tweets may exist and comparing the densely populated, spatially proximal cities on the east coast of the US to the vast barren expanses of Russia isn't really relevant. In order to make any sensible interpretation of the extent to which, say, Muscovites and New Yorkers like the new album we need to know the proportion of the population that (a) use Twitter and (b) turn on geolocated tweets. And China? Could people there even download her album?

So it's not a flawless map. It's a map.It has flaws, just like pretty much every other map ever made.  It's not awesome and it's not amazing either. It actually has some pretty major flaws because the data is so weak but then again, these days the ability to recognise, appreciate and acknowledge flaws in online maps seems to be an irrelevance for most people. They're happy in their ignorance consuming this sort of work and not caring.

Like I said...nice eye candy and we move on...but pur-leeaaase let's not elevate such work to being 'flawless' when it isn't. If this is flawless then I'll get my coat. taxi for Field.

Thursday 12 December 2013

Cartographic tribalism

Below is a blogged version of my latest Editorial from The Cartographic Journal which I wrote mid-October. It's based on my very personal impressions from a busy period of geo-conference attendance during August-October this year. I'm not the only one who has been mulling over the issue of geo-tribes. I previously wrote about my thoughts on the fallacy of new cartography and this Editorial represents a development of that thinking based on the way that different 'clubs' manage and deliver their events and meetings. I'm not alone.

Michael Gould (@michael_d_gould) hosted and Alan McConchie (@mappingmashups) organized a #geowebchat on 3rd December, a transcript of which can be accessed here. Michael and Renee Sieber have also proposed a panel session at the 2014 meeting of the Association of American Geographers. It's entitled "Battle of the tribes: geoweb, GIS, GI Science, cyberGIS, neogography". I look forward to taking part from the geo-crowd at the panel session but for now here's my Editorial...it's long (it's an Editorial!):

Cartographic Tribalism

I survived Maptember 2013. What can we learn about the state of Cartography from all the various geo-events? A hectic conference season began in Dresden, Germany, with the International Cartographic Conference (ICC).  I then moved immediately on to the UK to take in some of the Society of Cartographer’s (SoC) Summer School before heading to Leicestershire (actually, Northamptonshire but that will become clear) for the British Cartographic Society’s (BCS) Symposium.  A quick trip back to Redlands to do some laundry and then it was back to the UK for the co-hosted Association of Geographic Information’s (AGI) annual GeoCommunity conference and then the Free and Open Source Software for Geospatial (FOSS4G) conference in Nottingham; then finishing up with the North American Cartographic information Society (NACIS) conference in Greenville, South Carolina. I managed six conferences. That wasn’t even half of those I could have attended but it was a decent effort. The main take-away for me is that tribalism, badges and a ‘club’ mentality are still very much in evidence across and within mapping related societies which are really not doing very much to break down the barriers between different types of map-maker. Here, I’ll take a look at some of my thoughts from each of the conferences and then see where we’re headed because the way in which different communities function and see themselves gives us plenty to think about.

The ICA’s biennial event was held in Germany and unlike an organization with individual members this is a conference that brings together academia, industry, map publishers and pretty much anyone with an interest in mapping. The ICA is a global organization and with over 1000 people attending there was a rich and diverse programme to satisfy pretty much every map-related need. There was a strong pre-conference with many ICA Commissions hosting workshops. Along with the ICA Commission on NeoCartography (led by Steve Chilton and Andrew Turner), the Commission on Map Design (Chaired by myself with Alex Kent, Bernhard Jenny and Anja Hopfstock) enjoyed a great day of presentations and discussion on the future of mapping. The technical sessions in the main programme were broad in appeal; the map gallery had some spectacular work and the exhibition had most of the major players showing their wares.  SwissTopo were even handing out neck ties based on their stunning map designs. There was a nod to new map-makers in the programme and some of those who would call themselves neo-cartographers attended which is encouraging.  It was, however, quite a ‘traditional’ conference in the main and with an Executive Committee largely led by academics the programme veers towards cartographic research and development. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing as this is where ideas are sparked and where we often (certainly historically) see the cutting edge of what’s new.  The map gallery was predominantly paper-based and the vendors were mostly those with a traditional business model and outreach. There was very little representation from the likes of Google, Apple, MapBox or any of a similar focus who have disrupted cartography over the last few years and although many of the presenters of papers were using a wide variety of software the Open Source community were not well represented in any sort of formal sense.  In some respects this, then, was a meeting of people who have a longer history in cartography and that at least allowed a sense of reflection on where the discipline and industry might be headed; what the challenges are; and how we might tackle them in the coming years.  No doubt, the sense of cartography being at an evolutionary (possibly revolutionary) juncture was palpable and most are keen to embrace change and ride the wave.  I couldn’t help reflecting on the fact that new players were not inspired enough about the prospect of a global gathering to consider attending a benefit.  Was this due to the location (and the cost of attendance) or perhaps the idea that cartography is not something they consider valuable? It might define a business model that they are attacking because they can (through code) make maps, but the practice of cartography isn’t necessarily something they see as core to their work so engagement in that community isn’t top of their agenda. Hopefully this might change for the next ICC in Rio in 2015 and it’s certainly an aim of ICA to strengthen links with emerging mapping communities.

The Cartographic Journal had a Special Issue for the Dresden meeting but it was disappointing that at least one other affiliate journal failed to meet their obligation. It is also interesting to note that the ICA itself are moving ahead with plans for their own International Journal of Cartography. I’m unsure of the value of launching a new journal, with a traditional publishing model, in the current climate. More journals are moving towards offering free content and with a number of cartography journals all vying in a niche area does the world really need another?  Many more people are using blogs and other publishing mechanisms to be heard. Fewer people need a journal to publish and there is some sense that another journal might not be necessary.  ICA feel strongly that a new journal will increase the body of work and help with improving citations but this will take some time to roll out. We’ll have to wait and see how this initiative plays out in the coming years but ICA want to focus on a strong scientific basis for the discipline and see research and it’s dissemination as a key aspect of what the organization offers.  The ICA map gallery was, as always, a feast of mapping from a wide range of countries; showcasing both traditional topographic map production as well as innovative single purpose thematic products.  Somewhat surprisingly, a map I had produced won the overall prize for best map but I have to say if I’d been on the panel of judges that award would have gone elsewhere. It’s humbling and also a privilege for work to be commended by your peers and a great honour for a map submitted by the UK to have won; though the irony of the same map being one of those not considered nearly good enough for a BCS award in 2012 wasn’t lost on a good number of people.  Mapping is subjective in so many ways and this proves the point magnificently!

ICC in Dresden was very well organized and with such a packed schedule there was so much quality on show. It’s always valuable to go outside of your close circle of carto-friends and colleagues and meet others and the ICC events are a perfect opportunity to stretch your own carto-horizons. Cartography is in good health on the face of it but behind the scenes there are concerns that the new and the old are drifting in different directions. This became more obvious for me as Maptember continued.

Naturally the Society of Cartographer’s Summer School event was on a much more modest scale though with perhaps only 30-40 people the event is becoming more of a workshop style than a full conference. Attendees represented a broad church but as you’d expect, many were of an academic background and the programme reflected fairly niche research interests.  There’s a much stronger link with ‘new cartography’ in evidence at SoC events partly as a function of the tastes of those that organize the events. The event is low-key and in a crowded conference space how long it can sustain as a separate entity is questionable. Large conference banquets are replaced by pub quizzes. Questions of sustainability and relevance are naturally of concern as the Society and the event look to the future. The economics of staging a conference are such that at some point smaller events will have to look at different models. Membership is also an issue with the 'club' mentality being quite strong in SoC. How does such an organization attract new members?  Indeed, do people want to ‘belong’ to a club based on cartography any more when it’s becoming such a part of general life, particularly one that is stubbornly hanging on to an academic production support environment background.  What defines someone with those interests now that the map might be considered just as ubiquitous as a spreadsheet or word processed document that the notion of a cartography club is not something people feel a strong urge to join. What do they get out of it? I’d always suggest that the opportunity to meet people, face to face, rather than in the disembodied virtual world of our social networks is immensely valuable and rewarding. Talking with people often sparks so much more…but with travel, accommodation and time costs becoming more critical, can such meetings survive among the plethora of others. Albeit the talks were fascinating, the event had an air of it clinging onto its last breath and perhaps the most startling and disappointing aspect was that there were no entries to the annual Wallis award for cartography.  As Benjamin Hennig succinctly put it “dammit, I could have won!”; a missed opportunity for so many and a sad reflection on the lack of support for a prestigious award.

In contrast to SoC, the BCS Annual Symposium had a triumphant air to it as attendees were welcomed to the somewhat stately Hothorpe Hall in Leicestershire for the 50th Anniversary celebrations. Actually…when you look at the map, Hothorpe Hall is in fact about 50 metres inside Northamptonshire since the River Welland is to the north and separates it from Leicestershire.  Really…you simply couldn’t make it up that having made a big play of returning to Leicestershire, the location of the first Symposium in 1963, the event had actually got it wrong on the map. It made a good number of us chuckle. Regardless, BCS is always a little more formal, a little more focused on corporate cartography and less academically inclined. One might compare SoC to BCS by suggesting the former functions like a working men’s club and the latter considers itself somewhat more refined.  To some that might come across as a little pompous and exclusive which is not an attractive trait.   The programme of talks at BCS were geared more towards those from cartographic businesses promoting their wares. There were relatively few talks concerned with cartographic research which were certainly more in evidence in Dresden and to an extent, at SoC.  With over 120 attendees the event was well attended which, one suspects, had to do with it being a landmark anniversary with a terrific set of talks and panel discussion by the heads of Britain’s five mapping agencies. For my third conference in Maptember though, similar themes of relevance and sustainability began to emerge.  Attendees were all quite well known to one another. The exhibition was similar to most other years. What’s new? Where are the new people? How does the Society promote relevance amongst new map-makers? The cost of events such as the BCS Symposium is certainly one major issue to overcome if it is to encourage wider participation; particularly from emerging and, dare I say, younger map-makers. Could co-locating with other conferences be an answer or again...are these sort of people really not interested in belonging to any sort of traditionally styled ‘club’? I don’t have the answer but I have a feeling that BCS, SoC and all those of a similar size and approach need to really tackle the issue head on over the next few years or participation will dwindle.  The map gallery and awards at BCS perhaps, again, provide a barometer of where the society is situated.  The maps that won awards were traditional in the main and while there’s no suggestion that they weren’t worthy of recognition, there was very little that was innovative or that demonstrably pushed cartographic boundaries.  None of them particularly inspired and, for some, they were just unremarkable. The BCS awards have always been held up as prestigious and they should shine a light on the very best of mapping. This year, they didn’t but you have to be in it to win it and many great maps weren’t entered…why? Is it apathy? Is the process of entering too much effort? Do people not care about awards any more and do they get their recognition and satisfaction in other ways? In some ways, the maps that won reflect the society and its membership more generally. There is more interesting work out there but to showcase it, you first need to attract those people to your club. So until new and different people are encouraged to enter their work then the same sort of maps will continue to win awards.

Of course, BCS isn’t the most corporate of geo-events on the UK calendar. For that, attention turns to the AGI’s GeoCommunity event, this year held at the University of Nottingham’s conference centre. Suits abound! Here then is the annual show of corporate geo with slick exhibition space and people all too willing to sell you something. You get what you pay for with this conference and it’s designed specifically to bring together geo-business for a mutual bit of back-slapping (and geobeer consumption).  In some respects it’s really just a trade show for geo and an opportunity for people to get together and while it offers an opportunity for businesses to get together the geo-world is actually so small most of these people probably meet every few months or so anyway. Long gone are the days when there were workshops and other practical tracks and although many of the talks are little more than advertisements, there are a few gems hidden away if you care to hunt them down. No map gallery. No maps. It’s hard to see where AGI fits into the scheme of things this year because if we’re honest, most people (me included) were really only in Nottingham to attend the co-located Free and Open Source Software for Geospatial (FOSS4G) conference which had pre-conference workshops on the same days and then the main programme immediately afterwards. Of course, what this demonstrates is that co-locating events does bring economies of scale and I am convinced GeoCommunity was well attended because people could justify one trip and expense for two events.

For the first time, FOSS4G was being held in the UK and organized by possibly the most enthusiastic and ebullient group of people you could ever meet. These people are passionate about geo and some, even, passionate about maps.  This is an entirely different crowd and the fact that there were possibly only one or two people I saw here who were at ICC, SoC or BCS tells its own story. Yet here we had a far more diverse group of people. The average age of attendees was much younger. They were generally focused on practical issues; developing code to support geo and mapping…yes, mapping. These are people who would never call themselves cartographers yet they are all making maps and there were hundreds of them. Why don’t these people go to cartographic conferences? Simple: they do not find them to be relevant. The making of a map is simply the result of a different process for them; they are interested in the technical challenge and construction but the work they are producing is innovative, disruptive and, crucially, is beginning to yield some impressive results. I have to add a disclaimer here that I was asked by the Local Organizing Committee to organize and curate a map gallery for the FOSS4G conference. Given my experience as a participant and organizer of such events in other places over the years I wanted to see what we could do differently.  The original plans were for a traditional gallery of maps printed out but I wanted to make this cutting edge, different.  I persuaded my fellow organisers we should go entirely digital. Maps were to be either web apps or if they were designed for print, submitted as a PDF. This approach was either going to go well or fail miserably. In the weeks leading up to the event we eventually received over 70 entries. I’ve been vocal in the past that web mapping has taken us a step back in cartographic terms, and that modern map-makers are eschewing the practice of cartography in favour of coded solutions but…I was impressed. We’ve reached a cusp where quality is now in evidence. Sure, there’s still a dearth of poor web maps we can point to daily but there are those who are harnessing the power of new technology and tools and really beginning to shape the next generation of mapping. Here, then, we saw some of the very best mapping currently being generated by (mostly) non-cartographers. The contrast with the BCS map gallery and awards (and the ICA to an extent) was remarkable though BCS was a supporter of the FOSS4G map gallery and it was good to be able to make the link between BCS and modern mapping in this way. We set up a web site to view the maps, we had a group of cartographic expert judges vote for category winners and we held a public vote via the web site for the best map.  This was global. You did not need to attend the conference to either submit or vote. We built a video to promote the entries and CASA at University College London loaned us their iPad wall which acted as a focal point alongside three large plasma screens located around the event. The gallery was promoted via Social Media, including being featured by Wired magazine and we got a huge number of hits to the site.  It remains live and I strongly encourage you to visit and be impressed (http://2013.foss4g.org/conf/gallery/) and also see the winners (http://2013.foss4g.org/conf/gallery/winners). 

The gallery was a huge success and a stand-out feature of the conference.  We managed to encourage participation from a wide range of people but there wasn’t a single map submitted to the FOSS4G gallery that had been submitted to any of the other club’s awards. This simply has to change if the traditional cartography clubs want to remain relevant. Finding ways to encourage these new map-makers that they can benefit from networking with cartographers and that showcasing their work in those arenas is important for the health of cartography. That said there was a strong undercurrent of tribalism at the event.  You’re either seen as being pro-open source or you’re badged as being from the proprietary world.  In terms of cartography, there’s still the age-old dichotomy of the paleo vs neo and far too many people seem to have incredible difficulty with the idea that you can have an interest in cartography but use and promote modern tools.  I increasingly get the feeling that it’s actually the new map-makers that enjoy this distinction.  They are approaching map-making using their unique skill-set and they seem to use this as a stick to beat anyone who may use proprietary GIS software or, heaven forbid, Adobe Illustrator.

I keep making noises that cartography evolves and changes based on technology and that with each new technological epoch, mapping tends to suffer for a while as the tools catch up and then we get launched into a new phase where we move forward once more.  Some people inevitably get left behind but those that are willing to evolve and grasp new challenges are well placed. But increasingly the new kids on the block seem to like to be seen as different, avant-garde almost; a new breed who simply aren’t interested in what theory or practice might have gone before. They usually align behind a new label to distinguish themselves from what has gone before (geoweb, neo, cyber...whatever). These are the very people who ICA, SoC and BCS want to encourage to their clubs but with such entrenched attitudes I’m unconvinced it’s a good idea if they harbor such attitudes.  Maybe the fact there are two worlds is something we just have to manage and learn to stop being so disparaging about others’ and their use of tools that might differ to our own preferences? I also felt very uncomfortable being badged as someone who works at a company that produces proprietary GIS software.  In much the same way that these new players tend to ignore much of the discipline of mapping pre-Google, it was quite interesting being effectively an unknown person. My 20+ years in academia went unknown and I was simply seen as someone who worked at a large American GIS firm…or ‘the enemy’ of open source if you want it in stark terms.  It’s a funny world when your employer is seen as what defines you. I wasn’t attending as a spokesperson of my company. I was actually attending as an individual…yet many preferred to overlook that I might have my own views, thoughts and comments untainted by my employer. I tend to find that most people whose company I enjoy in the geo-world are individuals that share a passion for geo, for maps and suchlike.  I couldn’t care who they work for particularly or how they do their mapping.  We share something far more profound than the mechanism we each choose to pay the mortgage.  I am constantly reminded by The classic quote from The Prisoner of “I am not a number, I’m a free man”. Most level-headed people in geo are not defined by their employer; and that’s what makes it so fascinating. Those that choose to apply labels (and perpetuate tribalism) don’t help themselves or the community in general. There were some very inappropriate comments made by presenters who should know better. What do those with a predilection for open (as in freedom of choice, not as in beer) source hope to gain by promoting their altruistic efforts by bashing those that have a different business model? It’s geo-tribalism at its worst and just not necessary.  So in much the same way as cartography itself is seen as divisive…you’re either in the old club or the new club, now the new club are trying to ostracize themselves further by insisting that open is vastly superior morally, commercially and functionally than proprietary.  Can’t we all just accept difference, see it as a good thing and work alongside or, even, with each other?

And so to the final Maptember event I attended (which, technically, was in October but let’s not split hairs): the North American Cartographic Information Society (NACIS) conference in Greenville, South Carolina. NACIS has done a good job of moving with the times and the mix of old and new, open and proprietary, paleo and neo is probably the most diverse of all the events I’ve attended and it’s a dynamic and passionate crowd.  In simple, terms there’s a good mix amongst the 150 or so people who attended. Don’t be fooled though, the divisions are still there. Many of the newer crowd are caught presenting material that, frankly, is old hat to someone who’s been around the discipline a while. Reinventing the wheel or, worse, ignoring the vast body of previous work, is a common theme in new mapping and amongst many new mappers.  That’s not to say new ways of doing things aren’t valuable; they very much are, but trying to assert they are revolutionary when it’s simply not is just not good enough. It’s akin to a student saying they couldn’t find any references and, by inference, that there isn’t any prior work.  Prior art exists for so much in cartography and many of the new map-makers do themselves a disservice by not acknowledging and honouring the legacy. Worse, becoming indignant if someone points this out just rams a huge attitudinal wedge into the mix that is precisely what needs to be broken down to build bridges between the tribes. NACIS was the only conference I attended that had a strong MapBox presence, alongside the likes of Esri (Google have also attended this event in the past). Now this is likely to be partly due to the fact it was held in North America and not Europe but at least they are engaging with the community in an active way. The map gallery is a student-led affair and the work the winning students put together was quite frankly, of an incredibly high standard.  They had print and web cartography on display which put much of what I saw at the other Maptember conferences to shame.

How, then, have NACIS been successful in encouraging new map-makers and younger map-makers to their conferences when the same cannot be said for many UK events?  I think the answer is simple…the spirit of entrepreneurship and the idea that you can do what you want and be who you want is strongly encouraged in the US from an early age.  People who make maps are confident in going to events where other map-makers go. Age is no barrier. Startups want to showcase their wares too and do not feel belittled by the bigger companies...they actually enjoy and gorge themselves on the challenge. Crucially, there is still such a thing as cartography taught in colleges and Universities in the US. There’s also a strong GIS presence across the curricula so there’s a steady stream of people happy to call themselves ‘cartographers’ entering the job market every year.  This isn’t the case in the UK. If you’re in geo you’re a minority. You are in an even smaller minority if you’re a geo-academic with GIS or cartography as a specialism. They are not seen as core or key skills or even as a serious discipline.  Consequently, there is very little in the way of new people coming through in the UK. Conferences and societies are populated by the same people who are getting older. New people are finding alternative avenues to be recognized. NACIS has not had such a hard job to persuade young or new map-makers to be involved because cartography is still a recognized ‘thing’ in the US. They also actively encourage new delegates to get involved.  They are encouraged to present. There’s a dedicated Practical Cartography Day. Social events focus on inclusivity and there’s even a ‘Lunch bunch’ event where groups of people are led by a ‘well known cartographer’ to an informal lunch in town somewhere.  I was one such ‘well-known cartographer’ (in my own lunch-time literally!!!) this year which was an honour but it was a great way to encourage new people to hang out with those who have been to a number of events. Even the equivalent of the pub quiz only allowed teams to enter if they contained a team member attending their first conference.  These are small things that make belonging to the club a much more pleasant experience for new people and also keep the more experienced on their toes! That’s not to say NACIS is not looking to the future, but they’re concerned that their membership is only 35% females and how can they redress that balance.  It’s a different problem.

So I come back to the original question of what can be learnt from Maptember? There’s no doubt that cartography is evolving rapidly. There’s also no doubt that people seem convinced that their own particular tribe is a safe haven and they are nervous (sometimes critical) of fellow map-makers who choose (or are paid) to do things differently.  The map galleries provided a good barometer of the health of each society and the type of people that are attracted to the events. The use of social media possibly provides another barometer. Non-existent at BCS, some use at SoC, lively at ICC (in relation to certain topic areas) and prevalent at NACIS.  The challenge then, is to continue to build bridges between the tribes. Can we sustain all these separate clubs? My sense is that the answer is no and that the role of a club of cartographers is perhaps in need of change. In just the same way that cartography as a discipline and practice has evolved then so too do the organisations that represent them. Stubbornly holding onto the past does no good; though there has to be give and take on both sides and if clubs are to change to meet the needs of new and emerging map-makers then they also have to recognize that others have gone before them in so many ways. I’m fortunate to have been able to attend all these events but I’m left with one lasting impression…it’s just too damn much! 21 days of conference in a 6 week period is unsustainable. That said, I truly value the friendships I’ve made through going to the various clubs I’m involved with. I was able to catch up with some remarkable people on my travels and meet new colleagues. My work will be richer for the experience. That’s what clubs are ultimately all about…sharing, debating and exploring the joy of mapping with like-minded people.

Kenneth Field
October 2013
Redlands, CA

Wednesday 20 November 2013

GIS Day fun

It's GIS Day. What do you mean you've never heard of it? Well, in the spirit of contributing a little fun to those having a geotastic day here's a little nugget I used to get my students to do as a map interpretation exercise. I can't claim it's original...my Oxford Polytechnic tutor Roger Anson made me do it during our cartography degree. So...get your pens and pencils out and let's see what you can conjure up. Submit your drawings (photos of scraps of paper, links to web maps or 3D animations with music) in the comments. I'll think up a prize for the most accurate answer...and if former Oxpoly carto grads are reading then you're excluded!

Draw, stating your scale, a contoured sketch map to show:

An island 65km long from SW to NE which varies in width from 48km in the SW to 16km in the NE.

The SW coast is much dissected by long, narrow fjord-like inlets, and is fringed by 5 small rocky islands of varying sizes. From this coast the land rises sharply to a plateau some 600m above sea level and extending through about one-third of the island.

The plateau descends to a low undulating plain about 25km long and 20km wide.  From the plain a range of hills rises to the NE and is flanked by a coastal plain about 8km wide. From these hills, rivers flow to both plains and also from the plateau to the larger plain.

The plateau is gritstone. The hills which run down to the coast in the NE, to form cliffs, are of chalk. Much of the smaller coastal plain is marsh, but the larger plain, from which two estuaries open, is of well drained land predominantly covered by alluvium.

In addition to relief and general topography, show drainage features, possible sites of settlement and lines of communication. Name your island appropriately!

Tuesday 12 November 2013

To react or not to react. That is the question.

It seems I've irked Mr MacWright again with my latest blog about the police.uk crime map.

He's even gone to the effort of cataloging my blogs and creating a taxonomy of alleged anti-MapBox sentiment:

A little scary but kudos for the effort! Odd classification though. I try not to focus on any platform but, rather, look at specific maps so using my blogs as an anti-MapBox metric is being a little mendacious.

This is a blog that voices constructive criticism about maps...that's the point. That's what the internet does - provide a place to share thoughts and ideas.  My intention in the blog is to challenge people's ideas of how maps work by pointing out their weaknesses. Not everyone will agree but it's my blog and I stand by the comments. When I can, or time/data permits, I even rework maps to show how I feel they may be improved. Choose not to read if they offend but making the assumption this conduit is my only voice is a serious misrepresentation.

I speak at many events. I write and publish. I perform numerous critiques in my role at work and these are forwarded to the appropriate persons using the appropriate form.  This blog allows me to explore publicly visible maps too. I could choose not to but there are already too many people who tacitly accept any map the internet pushes. This blog is but a fraction of my contribution to cartographic discourse, both positive and negative (though I prefer to see it as constructively pointing out limitations rather than just being negative for the sake of it). It's also true that silence often says much more than words so sometimes it's simply best not to use social media as a vehicle and choose a less public form of interaction instead.

My take on the maps I use as a basis for comment is to see how the message suffers through poor cartography. The same is true for the crime map blog which is very positive about the technology underpinning it but the message the map delivers is flawed.  I struggle to see how one might come to the conclusion it was negative about MapBox per se.

I don't criticize the work of my colleagues via my blog because I strongly suspect my employer would be somewhat displeased. I wouldn't imagine this is a situation unique to me. Internally, comments are shared. I am also very critical of my own maps where I cannot necessarily achieve what I might want. It's really up to others to provide critical commentary on my work (which I would encourage)...and they often do which is what helps in trying to improve my own work.

There are many ways to influence change in trying to improve how maps communicate and my blog is one piece of a much larger jigsaw. You have to see the whole puzzle to get the big picture. Take my tweets for instance...there's probably a fair split between sharing or commenting on good work as their is sub-par work. I've certainly been pretty positive in tweets over the last few months about many initiatives coming out of MapBox, CartoDB, d3, the open source community and a host of other stuff.  I was the author of a very popular blog on the Esri web site explaining how those using ArcGIS Online can consume their MapBox maps as an alternative to the Esri offerings.

Do good work. Share it. Take critical comment in the right spirit. Set up parody Twitter accounts. Use your right of reply if you want.

To react or not to react: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous tweeting,
Or to take arms against a sea of misrepresntation,
And by opposing end them? To blog: to tweet.

Monday 11 November 2013

Oh crikey!...it's the rozzers!

Police.UK just published an updated crime map.

They've been hard at work over the last couple of years since the original version which was released in February 2011.

OSM. Check
MapBox.js. Check.
Leaflet. Check.
Dynamic cluster markers. Check.
Neat customisable search area. Check
Clean UI. Check

Yep, they've got all the latest tech driving the map and in respect of the UI/UX it's a clear improvement but has it improved in terms of what it offers the casual user?  I wrote a blog on the first map and pointed out a few cartographic issues with how the data was misrepresenting geography and crime...so what's changed?

Nothing. Check.

It's a new face on an old map. The data model is the same as before...crimes are aggregated to a generic locator placed on a road segment. Only when you click on the marker symbol do you get a breakdown of crime type (and only when you're zoomed well into the map). I can filter by type but that just updates the number.  Why hasn't the map been designed so I can easily 'see' the patterns? Why make me have to interpret numbers?

Why aren't the symbols scaled properly...look in the image above. 1 crime is the same sized symbol as 8. 286 only marginally larger. This is a false picture visually and perceptually. Did 286 crimes really get committed 'here' as it says when you open the popup? Of course they didn't. They occurred across an area. So what area is that and how can I see it? This is a perfect example of the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem at work. Every number in the map is a function of the size and shape of the reporting area. What are these? It's important to understand them to gauge how those arbitrary areas affect the pattern you're seeing. Small numbers appear on smaller roads and larger numbers on larger ones...so the reporting seems to have a relationship with the nearest road and of course you'd expect more crimes over longer roads covering larger areas.

And here's the sting...unless those numbers all relate to equally sized areas, or they are on an equally spaced grid the map is clearly falling foul of that age old problem of not normalizing your data to account for differently sized enumeration areas.  I have no problem with proportional symbols of totals being used as long as I can see what the pattern of the enumeration area is...but without it I have no idea how the map is being shaped whatever slick interface I have to navigate.

My previous comments about version 1 stand...the proportional symbols are weak and suggest absolute location as well as the uncertainty of the underlying enumeration geography not being visible. Why not use a proportional linear symbol for the entire road rather than suggest all crimes occur at that specific point? Better still...why not symbolize the reporting areas to give us a truer picture of crime across space? Are area maps just not sexy enough any more?

Is this a question of the data being generalized to a nearest point or is it the mapping trying to introduce some fuzziness so as not to be too accurate in identifying specific locations? Either way, the map locates crimes at points that don't actually locate crimes and probably fails to show us the true pattern. It's a dangerous story to tell. It's also laziness...the data are most likely reported to a nearest enumeration point and that defines the map. No attempt to process it into something more meaningful.

As readers of Treasure Island know full well, X didn't actually mark the spot where the treasure was buried...and this national map of crime perpetuates this myth by showing inaccurate locations. I look forward to version 3 in 2016 when they might actually address the data and cartographic issues of the map rather than just the cosmetic.The KISS principle used to mean "Keep It Simple Stupid" but now seems to be more appropriately "Keep It Slick Stupid".  UI/UX is not the same as cartographic design.

Monday 28 October 2013

What price cartography?

An advert caught my eye this morning for a 12 month maternity cover post as a Cartographic Assistant in Cambridge UK. Salary? £14,000 (maximum) per annum plus a few odd benefits like a clothing allowance (map ties?). Now before I get carried away I appreciate this is for the post of 'assistant' and it's a non-permanent contract but...

That salary is derisory. In my last few years as a lecturer at Kingston University it was becoming increasingly difficult to attract wannabee degree students to courses that blended GIS with mapping and computer science.  Mapping has become so pervasive that so many presume it's largely something that just 'happens' and the job market reflects that; there can't possibly be a worthwhile career to be had; and surely it's not worth dedicating three years of study on. We also worked closely with the geo-industry and the story we got from them is that they were finding it increasingly difficult to recruit graduate level talent with geo-skills. Sure, plenty of geography graduates who can staff the local McDonalds but not that many with the skills for a modern mapping job.

When you see derisory salaries such as this you can easily see why the industry is not attractive to people deciding what to choose for their degree and possible career path. A quick look at what graduates earn reveals an average graduate salary of £21,762 and an average non-graduate of £14,801. Geography graduates slightly below average, Computer Science slightly higher. Big bucks for Engineering, Medicine, Dentistry etc... There's clear value in getting a University education and that's without taking account of future earning potential.

Why then, is cartography relegated to the non-graduate pile, particularly as the world now more than ever needs people with skills in understanding and communicating spatial information and who can both build and harness the amazing new mapping tools we have? For what it's worth, my perception is still that far too many sorely underestimate the value they place on quality mapping. They don't really understand what it means to be a cartographer, what it entails and see it as a relatively low-skilled position. We've all heard the jibes about "hasn't the world already been mapped" and that attitude pervades but if companies really want to get serious with their mapping they need to hire people who know what they are doing and can do it well.

So the company advertising this position clearly sees cartography as a non-graduate role. Little wonder, then, that it's tough to persuade people of the value of a University education in GIS/Mapping or a related subject. Cartography, then, will continue to be classed as a largely unimportant and poorly paid job. I pity the person who takes this...a quick look at the Cambridge rental market reveals an average rent of £1,135 per month. Good luck living off your spare £380 for the year...oh, wait, that rent doesn't include Council Tax, Utilities and lattes...debt here we come!

Thursday 24 October 2013

A touch too much on house prices

Neal Hudson (@resi_analyst) just published what he describes as a 'detailed map of London house prices':

Neal's map struck me as an example of a breed of maps that are becoming pervasive online simply by virtue of the fact that large datasets are more accessible. Is that a problem? No...quite the opposite; the potential for making maps has never been greater though the default approach to mapping large datasets is simply to throw it all on the map.  A few years ago this map would have been on a Google basemap with a smothering of red Google markers.  We've certainly progressed and Neal's done two things...coloured the symbols to denote average house price and sized them to denote the number of sales. I think he's gone too far.

The number of bits of data you have doesn't make the map 'detailed'. It just makes it 'a lot'.  Detail can only be seen if the map's content is legible and so much of it masks itself. We get a broad idea that there are concentrations of higher house prices but that's about it.  Where's the context? I know that the areas without any dots are predominantly parks so it's no surprise that higher prices are evident around Hyde Park, Regent's Park or Richmond Park.  It's also no surprise that there are lower average prices around the Lee Valley, Heathrow airport or the Thames estuary but unless you know the geography you have no hope of being able to describe the pattern and explore possible relationships with environmental or socio-economic circumstance. So the map sparks interest but you can't actually explore any questions you may have.

I also wonder if removing the house price sales variable and just showing the average house price would be a better idea? Do these two variables actually make sense on the same map? I get why they would but encoding too much in one map is sometimes a touch too much for the map to be able to handle. The symbols are inevitably competing for space because postcode areas in London are small. As soon as the decision was made to map number of house sales by varying the symbol size the problem became almost unmanageable. Sticking with one variable and keeping the map simple might have made the message more striking.  Making two maps, side by side may also show some interesting patterns that combining the data masks.

Couple of other carto-quibbles...the red-blue dichromatic colour scheme is clearly a default and going through washed out colours in the mid-range does nothing for the map...but hang on...why use a dichromatic scheme in the first place? The symbols vary around £400k. Is this the average of averages? What is the importance of this critical break in the symbols? I'd wager nothing...so the map would probably work better with a single hue scheme. And what of some other context? How does the London bubble compare to the rest of the UK? Even at the lower end, most London houses are probably more expensive that the average for the rest of the country which might be a useful comparison to state. Finally, and I'm getting into cartonerd detail here...overlapping classes in the legend just needs modifying to avoid the same value appearing to lie in two classes.

Monday 16 September 2013

FOSS4G 2013 Map Gallery

About a year ago I was asked by Steven Feldman, Chair of the 2013 FOSS4G Conference, if I'd be interested in organising and curating a map gallery for the event. I jumped at the chance. The conference was being held in my home town of Nottingham, UK and it was an honour to be charged with helping out my geo-friends.

I have worked closely with Rollo Home and Barry Rowlingson, with support from the British Cartographic Society and International Cartographic Association, to get the gallery up and running. We decided early on to go for a 'digital' gallery meaning we weren't going to have walls pinned with paper maps at the conference.  This was initially controversial but in the new age of cartography I felt that giving space to new map-makers and focussing on digital media seemed appropriate. Paper isn't dead but this conference, probably more than many, demands the map gallery to move with the times. This was an experiment in some respects but I'm delighted to say that as the conference kicks off it's come together superbly.

We've had over 70 submissions and I have to say that as someone who often bemoans the lack of quality in modern cartography, I've been hugely impressed.  There are some truly impressive maps and on the whole, the collection represents a time-slice of map-making that showcases the state of the art as it stands.  Sure the tools to make maps are progressing at an astonishing rate and maps will mature and become far more nuanced as products but this is where we are at currently.

So I invite you to head over to the FOSS4G Map Gallery and take a look for yourselves.  You'll find one or two maps you may have seen before and a whole load you haven't. There are maps made by people you're no doubt familiar with and many more from names you're probably going to hear far more of in the coming years.

There are a number of prizes on offer for entrants to the map gallery competition. The categories of best data integration, best software integration, best cartographic display, best static map (digital display), best anti-map, best web map application and most unique map have already been judged by an international panel of map experts. The results will be announced during the closing plenary on Saturday 21st Maptember (yes, the month of September has been hijacked because of the sheer number of geo-events taking place in the UK).

There is one final prize available though...the People's Award.  And YOU can vote too because the voting takes place entirely from the Map Gallery itself.  Click on a map you like and a vote button appears.  The voting is open to the global community and not just conference attendees so if you like a map...let us know by voting.  Voting closes Saturday just before the winners are announced.

It's looking like it's going to be a terrific week of geo-fun at the conference.  The gallery lives online but is also being showcased in a 20 minute movie streamed via three large plasma screens on site.  You can watch the movie on YouTube.

We're also extremely grateful to our friends at CASA who have loaned us their iPad wall to display a patchwork of gallery entries.

The iPad and plasma screens provide a great way of seeing the range of maps and soaking them up but please VOTE.

I'd personally like to thank Barry who has gone above and beyond in developing the technical backend to much of what we can see and use. Thanks.  Oh...and in case you're wondering, yes some of my maps are in the gallery because it was open to all but you can't vote for mine even if you were minded to. The last time I organised and then won a competition it ended very badly...student days, pub golf...those who know me know the story and if you catch me at the conference I'll share it with you. I learnt my lesson.

A HUGE thanks to all who entered. It's been a privilege to help organise the gallery and good luck in the awards!

Saturday 7 September 2013

Guardian's Australian Election Map

Mapping election results usually brings out the worst in cartography.  The usual default is to map an arbitrary area in a single solid colour showing the winner's affiliation (think red/blue US States).  The problem with this sort of approach is the underlying 'real' geography of where people who vote actually live is missing.  The map ends up showing a severely distorted geography because it doesn't take account of the population size and distribution and so the map of US elections appears predominantly red even though Obama (blue) won. The counter is often to distort the geography to equalase the underlying problem..such as creating a population density equalizing cartogram (the so-called Gastner-Newman approach). Then there's the dot density approach, hex-binning approach and the dasymetric approach ad nauseam.

What a refreshing change, then, to see some sense by The Guardian when mapping the Australian election. Nick Evershed briefly touches on some problems with 'traditional' election maps then shows his creation...

It's a sort of Dorling cartogram with circles sized proportional to the population in that electoral area and then coloured according to affiliation.  The circles are displaced to avoid overlapping but they've added a basemap to at least give some geographical sense to the otherwise abstract representation.

I like Dorling cartograms so I am bound to like this effort.  The symbols are clear, efficient and unambiguous. Because of the nature of the population distribution in Australia the map works and the major cities become identifiable (labels would help for people to identify each of the major cities though).  In a country that has far more people crammed across more of the actual space the technique wouldn't be as effective.

I'd have preferred a larger variation in symbol size (it's difficult to see any differentiation) and a legend to tell me what amount of people are represented by the symbol sizes but kudos to The Guardian who have not simply reached for the defaults and have sought to illustrate the story with something more nuanced and thought through. They've actually showed something sadly lacking amongst many of today's rapid map-making map-makers...they've done some cartographic research and made effective use of it. Even better, their write-up briefly describes their design process and explains why other maps were discounted before they arrived at this effort.

Form, function and keeping it simple.  Simple!

Wednesday 4 September 2013

The Underground Map of [insert here]

Tube maps. Beck's is beautiful. One or two others work.  I currently have a collection of over 170 copies, parodies, imitations and fakes; most of which are just tedious.  Simon Patterson published The Great Bear in the early 1980s which kicked off the craze of using the Tube map as a canvas on which to hang your own crazy idea.  I gave a talk at the International Cartographic Conference on this very issue as myself and collaborator Professor William Cartwright feel it's time to leave the map alone (slides here).

And then today this pops up...

It's a tube map of the elements in the periodic table. There's a write up in The Guardian. It's a map made by Mark Lorch, a Senior Lecturer in Chemistry at University of Hull.  Now I don't want to be too disparaging because no-one likes criticism but in my opinion this guy has clearly spent too long in the fume cupboard.

What was he thinking?  The periodic table is a masterpiece of clear, efficient design that captures the organisation and relationship of the elements perfectly. Dmitri Mendeleev is credited with the first fully published version in the mid 1800s and, like Beck in the 1930s, clearly took cues from previous work but sprinkled a bit of magic to create a definitive masterpiece.

If you are going to have a stab at re-designing such a classic start with a blank canvas and think creatively. Instead, Dr Lorch decided to plagiarise Mr Beck's work and use it as a basis for this Frankenstein of a tube map derivative. Many have done so. Most fail but at least they are usually trying to make a map of some humourous nonsense. This plumbs new depths as it takes two classics, rides roughshod over one while destroying another.

A few years ago such nonsense would have never seen the light of day but now it gets top billing on The Guardian's web site for all to see and it's already racking up the obligatory likes, re-tweets and suchlike.

h/t to @Jon_Two and @williamscraigm for ruining my morning by alerting me to this.